Real connected players don't play 24 hours a day, 7 days a week - no matter how fun the game is.

And?

Quote:

Originally Posted by KaVir

It becomes your problem when the only way to keep up with them is to bot as well. You're forced to "cheat" yourself out of an enjoyable gaming experience if you wish to compete - in effect, you're forced to choose between "having fun" and "being competitive".

Why would you care about being able to "keep up" with someone who is, to all intents and purposes, playing a completely different game from the one that you are playing? If you know that you are playing the game "properly" and he isn't, isn't that enough for you to take pride in your own accomplishments and ignore his? Like I said: shake your head, smile, and say "kid, the only person you're fooling is yourself". Are you really so insecure that, even when you know someone else is following an easier, shorter path than you are, you still can't stand for him to progress faster than you do?

As I also said before, on a well-designed, enjoyable MUD the only person being cheated is him, not you. If it takes (say) roughly 10 hours to get from level 17 to level 18, and you've accomplished that by actually playing the game for 10 hours, while he has accomplished it by playing for 3 hours and 'botting for the other 7, what that he means is that he has missed out on 7 hours of highly enjoyable gameplay that you have had the chance to experience. You should be happy that you've had an opportunity for 7 extra hours of enjoyable gameplay that he has stupidly decided to pass up, and you should feel nothing but sympathy for the 'botter because he is unable (or unwilling) to enjoy the game to the extent that you can.

The only situation in which it makes sense to resent the 'botter is if playing the game isn't actually enjoyable. If the 10 hours of gameplay is pure, tedious, mindless, insufferable grind and you hate every single second of it, and the only reason you do it at all is because once you get to level 18 you will gain access to some features of the game that are actually fun to play, then (and only then) it might make sense to get annoyed about players who "aren't putting in the work". But if you get that little pleasure out of playing the MUD then it clearly has vastly more serious problems than 'botting to worry about.

Once again: MUDs Are Not Work(tm). MUDs are supposed to be fun. Playing the MUD should be an end in itself, not a means to an end. If playing the MUD is not enjoyable, that is the problem. If the admin, instead of actually making the game enjoyable to play, just blames those people who recognise that it isn't enjoyable and want to skip to the parts that are actually fun, he is simply in denial about his own short-comings.

For that matter, why would you care about "keeping up" with other players at all? Suppose you've been playing the game for a month, and someone else has been playing it for two years. Is it a requirement, as far as you're concerned, that he cannot be further advanced in the game than you are? If not, then the fact that another player has advanced further along the path of progression than you have clearly doesn't matter to you, which means that the methods used to achieve that progression cannot matter either.

There may well be specific, practical cases where a player who has progressed further than you have can cause you annoyance, and it may well be worth addressing those specific cases to prevent them from happening. For example, it might (perhaps) be worth having a rule that says that a player cannot attack another player who is 5 or more levels below him. But, again, this not a problem caused by 'botting. It has nothing to do with 'botting! The problem there is "how do we handle interaction between players of different levels?" The question of how any given player achieved his level, or how long it took him to get there, isn't relevant.

Why would you care about being able to "keep up" with someone who is, to all intents and purposes, playing a completely different game from the one that you are playing?

This appears to be crux of your misunderstanding: the first two letters of MUD stand for "Multi-User". The other person isn't playing a different game from you - they're playing the exact same game, and in many cases are directly competing with you.

And regardless of your views on botting (which, judging from the numerous barbs and veiled insults you've been throwing into your comments, are obviously pretty strong) the fact remains that many players hate botting. It reduces their enjoyment of the game when they realise that they're playing against scripts instead of fellow humans, and that the only way they can compete is to do the same thing themselves. In short, it stops them from having fun.

Most of this discussion is irrelevant. If you find any particular MUD boring to play without botting, and botting is against the rules of that MUD, the answer is not to just decide what the hell you'll bot anyway, it is to find another MUD more compatible with your playing style.

I've never been a big fan of "If you don't like it leave" but, sometimes, that is the answer.

It reduces their enjoyment of the game when they realise that they're playing against scripts instead of fellow humans, and that the only way they can compete is to do the same thing themselves. In short, it stops them from having fun.

I guess an analogy to doping seems fitting, and to argue in favor of botting would be to argue in favor of allowing anyone to use doping.

Regarding the argument in favor of complete 'botting' egalitarianism, while few philosophers argue against equal opportunity, most understand that any form of egalitarianism that goes beyond meritocratic goals is doomed to fail. Communism is a good example, which not so much failed because of human nature but because big governments don't work all that well, or maybe because individuals are not equal.

Written rules only go as far and are either too blunt (holocaust) or too sophisticated to manage (oj simpson), let alone enforce. MUDs offer the unique opportunity to hardcode rules, which fixes the enforcement issue, but the choice is once again between being too blunt or too sophisticated to manage.

I guess an analogy to doping seems fitting, and to argue in favor of botting would be to argue in favor of allowing anyone to use doping.

That is, indeed, a potentially useful analogy, particularly when you think about why it is that they introduced rules against drug-taking in sport in the first place. Contrary to popular belief, it had nothing whatever to do with ensuring a "level playing field". What it was actually intended to do was to protect athletes; and not to protect the ones who didn't take drugs, but to protect the ones who did.

The problem is that drugs like this (anabolic steroids, for example) have some really nasty side-effects. If drug-taking were widespread then a new competitor would find himself faced with a horrible choice: take drugs that are guaranteed to have a massive, toxic, damaging effect on his body, or choose not to take them and thus guarantee that he won't be truly competitive with those athletes who do. The solution to this was to introduce new rules saying that certain substances - the harmful ones - could not legally be used. This was intended to reduce the pressure on athletes to take them, and thus aoid forcing athletes to damage themselves in the attempt to stay competitive.

That was a probably the correct decision at the time; but the reason why it was correct was purely because the drugs were damaging to the people who took them. If the drugs had been entirely harmless to the people taking them then they wouldn't have been banned. (And last time I checked, 'botting does not cause gynecomastia).

Unfortunately, the perception has shifted from then to where we are now, which is a feeling among people in general that athletes taking performance-enhancing substances is somehow "unfair". This, frankly, is a stupid perception. It's not stupid to suggest that it's unfair if one athlete has access to drugs that another athlete doesn't, but it is stupid to single out drugs as the only area in which this principle applies. If one athlete has access to altitude training while another doesn't, that is just as unfair. If one athlete has access to a professional coach and another doesn't, that is just as unfair. If one athlete gets better nutritional advice than another, that is just as unfair. But no one would seriously consider banning athletes from having access to altitiude training, professional coaches or nutritionists.

So it isn't actually about making things "fair"; and the whole thing is rife with idiotic, ill-thought-out, double standards.

A sensible approach to doping, in my view, is the one adopted by professional body-builders. There, you have two separate categories in a competition: one for those who choose to take steroids, and one for those who choose not to. Every body-builder has a free choice in the matter. No one is forced to take steroids, or denied access to them, so it's a "level playing field" and no one perceives taking steroids as "cheating" so long as you're up-front about taking them. And those who choose not to take steroids have the sense not to get worked up about those who do, or campaign vigorously for the taking of steroids to be banned: they recognise that it's an equally valid choice, just not the one that happens to satisfy them.

Cheating only makes it fun for the cheater - it ruins the game for the rest.

Talking about 'botting as "cheating" is effectively a circular argument ("'botting is wrong because it's wrong", or "'botting is wrong because I say it is"). Obviously if the rules of the MUD prohibit 'botting then 'botting, by definition, is "cheating". But that's something that is obvious enough it isn't worth discussing. What you should be discussing is not "is 'botting against the rules?" but "should 'botting be against the rules?"

In Soccer, for example, there is no rule that says players are not allowed to scratch their right ear during the course of the game. In theory, we could introduce such a rule, and, if we did, scratching your ear in a soccer match would then, absolutely and unambiguously, constitute "cheating". But the important question is: should scratching your right ear in a Soccer game be against the rules? To determine that you need to think about whether allowing players to scratch their ears in the middle of the game actually has a tangible, detrimental effect on the game or on the other players. If it doesn't, then it's a stupid rule.

So, if you are going to argue that 'botting should be against MUD rules, you need to answer this question: how, exactly, does a player 'botting ruin the game for other players?

I'm not saying there aren't any ways in which 'botting affects other players; but I suggest that if you look at every specific way in which it can have an impact on other players, there are usuallyplenty of other mechanisms by which precisely the same thing could happen with precisely the same consequences, even though 'botting wasn't in any way involved. If that's the case then 'botting is not actually the problem: the problem is the specific, undesirable effect, and that needs to be addressed directly, in a way that doesn't get distracted by the question of whether 'botting was involved.

For example, suppose that you and another player start playing the MUD at the same time. He 'bots, you don't. After a while, you've got to level 15 and he's got to level 30. At that point, he embarks on a campaign of PK-ing you at every conceivable opportunity, and because of the level-advantage that 'botting has given him, you are unable to defend yourself.

Is this an undesirable phenomenon? Yes, absolutely. Would I, as an admin, want to do something to prevent it from happening? Probably. But the point is that what is problematic about this situation actually has nothing to do with 'botting. The problem is that you've got a level 30 character embarking on a long-term personal vendetta against a level 15 character and making his on-line life a misery. The fact that the level 30 character became level 30 by 'botting is absolutely irrelevant: it would be equally wrong if he had achieved level 30 by playing for more hours in the day than you do, or by joining the MUD six months earlier than you did.

So, if we want to address this problem, what we need to address is: can we stop long-term vendettas, and, in particular, can we stop high level characters from causing low-level characters to have a really miserable time? Focusing on 'botting in this situation is actually a dangerous red herring that distracts attention away from the real problem.

So, if you are going to argue that 'botting should be against MUD rules, you need to answer this question: how, exactly, does a player 'botting ruin the game for other players?

I'm not arguing that botting should be against the rules, only that it can be a serious problem, and its potential impact should be taken into careful consideration when designing a mud.

It can ruin the game for other players because they are forced to choose between having fun (by playing the game normally) and being competitive (by botting) - and the two choices are generally mutually exclusive. Furthermore, depending on the nature of the game, those who choose to play normally may have their fun seriously reduced anyway, if they're unable to compete with those who do bot.

I'm not arguing that botting should be against the rules, only that it can be a serious problem, and its potential impact should be taken into careful consideration when designing a mud.

I certainly have no argument with that statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KaVir

It can ruin the game for other players because they are forced to choose between having fun (by playing the game normally) and being competitive (by botting) - and the two choices are generally mutually exclusive.

Hmmm. That's an interesting new take on the question: 'botting makes the game less enjoyable for the 'botter.

You yourself were saying earlier that 'botters don't 'bot all the time - they 'bot in between fully-connected sessions. That would suggest that, if a player does feel obliged to 'bot, having an enjoyable time when they are connected would not be adversely affected by the fact that they've been 'botting when they weren't.

Could you give me some practical examples of how a player 'botting harms his own enjoyment of the game?

Quote:

Originally Posted by KaVir

Furthermore, depending on the nature of the game, those who choose to play normally may have their fun seriously reduced anyway, if they're unable to compete with those who do bot.

I'm still hoping for some examples of how. It's easy enough to see that trying to progress at the same rate as a 'botter would be difficult if you don't 'bot yourself, what I don't see is why that's a problem.

It shouldn't damage your ego to know that other people are progressing faster than you are if you know that the reason why they are is because they've chosen the "soft option" to do it. (If someone can run 100 metres in less time than it takes me to run 200 metres, this not something which distresses me).

I can see that, if you're in a heavily PvP environment, it would be tiresome being outperformed by characters who have reached a high level sooner than you have; but I fail to see why this would be any more annoying than being outperformed by someone who is higher level than you for a different reason (e.g. because he's been playing the MUD longer than you have). If this is a problem, the solution is not to crack down on 'botting, but to crack down on high-level players beating up on low-level players, regardless of how the level-differential happened.

So I'm still waiting for examples of ways in which 'botting can have a tangible negative impact on non-'botters and where it is impossible or unlikely for the same negative impact to happen when 'botting isn't involved.

Most of this discussion is irrelevant. If you find any particular MUD boring to play without botting, and botting is against the rules of that MUD, the answer is not to just decide what the hell you'll bot anyway, it is to find another MUD more compatible with your playing style.

I've never been a big fan of "If you don't like it leave" but, sometimes, that is the answer.

I actually wouldn't argue with that. But I still think it's reasonable to discuss the reasons why a given MUD might or might not have a rule against 'botting. And I also still think that if 'botting is very prevalent on a MUD, the admins need to ask themselves some hard questions about why it is that so many people think their game becomes more enjoyable when they play it less.

Could you give me some practical examples of how a player 'botting harms his own enjoyment of the game?

You can't enjoy a game if you're not actually playing it. Every challenge overcome by your bot is a challenge that you miss out on. Assuming the content is enjoyable (which it should be if the game has been well designed), then each piece of content your bot completes is another potentially enjoyable experience you've lost out on.

Quote:

I can see that, if you're in a heavily PvP environment, it would be tiresome being outperformed by characters who have reached a high level sooner than you have; but I fail to see why this would be any more annoying than being outperformed by someone who is higher level than you for a different reason (e.g. because he's been playing the MUD longer than you have).

Because in order to catch up with the more experienced player you still have to play the game, complete the content, overcome the challenges. You don't have to compromise your own enjoyment in order to compete.

You can't enjoy a game if you're not actually playing it. Every challenge overcome by your bot is a challenge that you miss out on. Assuming the content is enjoyable (which it should be if the game has been well designed), then each piece of content your bot completes is another potentially enjoyable experience you've lost out on.

Well, okay, that's true; indeed, I said something very similar myself a few posts back, by way of arguing that one should sympathise with the plight of 'botters rather than condemning them for what they do.

However, there are still a lot of assumptions here.

Are players really so pathetically, pathologically driven to "keep up" with other players that they are willing to severely compromise their own gaming pleasure to do it? Is that a common MUD player trait?

And much more importantly, even if a player does have sufficiently deep-seated emotional problems that he cannot bear to have another player on the MUD be more advanced than he is, why single out 'botting as a trigger for that behaviour? A person like that would be equally driven to 'bot in order to catch up with players who have been playing the MUD longer than he has; to catch up with players who play the game for more hours a day than he does; to catch up with players who are simply better at the game than he is. You cannot reasonably argue that any of those other factors (e.g. "being better than I am" or "having played the MUD for longer than I have") should be against the rules, so why single out 'botting for special treatment? Other players not 'botting would remove only one quite minor "competitive" pressure.

Unless you're suggesting that 'botting should be banned so that this psychologically-damaged, compulsively-competitive player can be "saved" from 'botting himself on the grounds that he'll be too scared to break the rules and do it. But I don't think that makes much sense either: if he's that driven, he'll 'bot anyway, regardless of the rules; and even if you did manage to prevent it, all you'd be doing would be taking away the one thing that might allow him to achieve the dominance he wants and make him less miserable. I think it's hard to argue that he should be prevented from 'botting "for his own good".

Quote:

Originally Posted by KaVir

Because in order to catch up with the more experienced player you still have to play the game, complete the content, overcome the challenges. You don't have to compromise your own enjoyment in order to compete.

The problem is that if the more experienced player is more experienced because he plays more hours a day than you do (or simply because he's better at the game than you are) the gap will simply get wider and wider. So our pathologically competitive player will get more and more miserable as time goes on. Players who are not pathologically competitive won't care - they'll be too busy enjoying the game.

Are players really so pathetically, pathologically driven to "keep up" with other players that they are willing to severely compromise their own gaming pleasure to do it? Is that a common MUD player trait?

Every mud should be designed with its target audience in mind, and a competitive mud is generally aimed at (and will attract) competitive players.

Pseudo psychology aside, you shouldn't put your players in a position where they are forced to compromise, particularly in such a no-win situation as this: they play the mud for fun, because they enjoy competitive games - if they have to sacrifice their fun in order to be competitive, you remove their reason for playing in the first place.

That assumes a black & white view of botting that isn't the case (ie that you're either not botting and "playing" or botting and "not playing"). In reality, botting can be anywhere between 0% of your play and 100% of your play rather than simply being 0% OR 100%.

Quote:

Every challenge overcome by your bot is a challenge that you miss out on. Assuming the content is enjoyable (which it should be if the game has been well designed), then each piece of content your bot completes is another potentially enjoyable experience you've lost out on.

Enjoyable is subjective. There's no such thing as Enjoyable, only enjoyable to a particular player. You may not like manually performing one particular activity in a game that you otherwise enjoy. It doesn't mean that activity isn't enjoyable. It just means that that person doesn't enjoy that activity OR that that person doesn't enjoy it enough to want to manually perform it 100% of the time.

Pseudo psychology aside, you shouldn't put your players in a position where they are forced to compromise, particularly in such a no-win situation as this: they play the mud for fun, because they enjoy competitive games - if they have to sacrifice their fun in order to be competitive, you remove their reason for playing in the first place.

That reasoning isn't sound and is contradicted by real-world behavior patterns as well. If players sacrifice their reason for playing a game in the first place by botting, nobody would bot long-term except among those looking to bot for other reasons (like financial gain - gold farmers). I know plenty of people who bot in MUDs of all kinds, from text to 3d graphical, and love the game they're botting in.

You sound like you don't like botting, but you should recognize that's just a personal preference.

Are players really so pathetically, pathologically driven to "keep up" with other players that they are willing to severely compromise their own gaming pleasure to do it? Is that a common MUD player trait?

Are players really so pathetically, pathologically driven to "keep up" with other players that they are willing to severely compromise their own gaming pleasure to do it? Is that a common MUD player trait?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiendish

Yes.
Any more insightful questions?

How about "should we be designing game rulesets to cater primarily for a psychologically damaged minority which cannot think clearly?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by KaVir

Pseudo psychology aside, you shouldn't put your players in a position where they are forced to compromise, particularly in such a no-win situation as this: they play the mud for fun, because they enjoy competitive games - if they have to sacrifice their fun in order to be competitive, you remove their reason for playing in the first place.

While I understand that many players want to compete with their fellow players, it still seems irrational to me to single out 'botting as anti-competitive.

Consider, for example, someone who plays the MUD for more hours a day than you do. You cannot compete with him on an equal footing, and the more time passes, the larger the gap between you will become. If the argument against 'botting is that players feel they are unable to compete against players who 'bot and will never be able to catch up with them, shouldn't we be equally concerned about players who play a large number of hours a day, given that the pressures they exert on insecure "competitive" players are just as profound? And yet, I don't see anyone suggesting that we have a hard-coded limit on the number of hours a day a person can play. What's the difference? Why is 'botting "cheating" but "playing a lot" isn't, when the impact it has on other players is identical?

That assumes a black & white view of botting that isn't the case (ie that you're either not botting and "playing" or botting and "not playing").

No, I don't assume that - quite the opposite in fact. I specifically clarified that "Every challenge overcome by your bot is a challenge that you miss out on" and that "each piece of content your bot completes is another potentially enjoyable experience you've lost out on". Even if you only bot 10% of the content, that's still 10% of the content that you personally miss out on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_logos

Enjoyable is subjective.

Obviously, but it's the lack of enjoyment I'm discussing, assuming a game which is otherwise enjoyable (because if it isn't, then that is the real problem). A lack of enjoyment due to never experiencing something isn't subjective - because you clearly cannot enjoy something you never experience.

In other words, I'm explicitly talking about situations where people bot content they would normally enjoy - situations where, to quote my first post, "you're forced to choose between "having fun" and "being competitive"".

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_logos

You sound like you don't like botting, but you should recognize that's just a personal preference.

I already clarified my stance earlier in the thread, when I stated "I'm not arguing that botting should be against the rules, only that it can be a serious problem, and its potential impact should be taken into careful consideration when designing a mud."

That stance hasn't changed. I'm not saying you shouldn't allow botting, or that it's wrong, only that it can have a serious impact which should be carefully considered when designing a mud. Do you feel otherwise? That it's something a mud designer shouldn't worry about?

While I understand that many players want to compete with their fellow players, it still seems irrational to me to single out 'botting as anti-competitive.

Firstly I'm not singling it out, just staying on topic - because this thread is about botting. Secondly, my major concern isn't with botting being anti-competitive, but rather with it being anti-fun (by which I mean missing out on fun, not being unfun).

That's not to say botting can't also be fun in its own right (because I know some people enjoy writing bots more than they do playing muds), only that I don't like the idea of competitive players being forced to choose between "having fun" and "being competitive".

Quote:

Originally Posted by shasarak

Consider, for example, someone who plays the MUD for more hours a day than you do. You cannot compete with him on an equal footing, and the more time passes, the larger the gap between you will become.

Right, but there is one very important distinction: Both players still play the mud, and don't have any incentive to skip content they would otherwise have enjoyed. They don't have to choose between "having fun" and "being competitive".

Imagine a mud where players can type "level up" to jump to the next level whenever they like. Now imagine adding that command to a PK mud which is targeted at highly competitive players. How many of those players do you think would fully explore each level of gameplay, and how many do you think would just skip right to the end - even if that earlier gameplay was something they'd have found entertaining and enjoyable?

That's not to say botting can't also be fun in its own right (because I know some people enjoy writing bots more than they do playing muds), only that I don't like the idea of competitive players being forced to choose between "having fun" and "being competitive".

You're presenting a false choice. I know plenty of competitive players who have fun botting in their game of choice.

Quote:

Right, but there is one very important distinction: Both players still play the mud, and don't have any incentive to skip content they would otherwise have enjoyed. They don't have to choose between "having fun" and "being competitive".

If player A and player B are otherwise equal in all respects, but player A is able to put in twice the time (assuming time matters....if it doesn't then botting isn't allowing anyone to skip anything, only assist with things), there is no way for player B to be competitive with player A.

You're arguing that because of bots, competitive players are forced to choose between botting or having fun, but the exact same (flawed) logic can be applied to the above situation. In fact, by your logic, player B cannot have fun, at all, since the only way for him to have fun is to be competitive (and he can't be due to having half the amount of time). That's simply not true, of course.

Quote:

Imagine a mud where players can type "level up" to jump to the next level whenever they like. Now imagine adding that command to a PK mud which is targeted at highly competitive players. How many of those players do you think would fully explore each level of gameplay, and how many do you think would just skip right to the end - even if that earlier gameplay was something they'd have found entertaining and enjoyable?

This is no different from the fact that there are cheat codes available for console games that allow you to skip content (and with, for instance, Xbox Live's achievement system, competitive types can turn every Xbox game into a competition). Some people use them, some people don't.

Different people wish to play games in different ways. It's just a personal preference.